In re Manuel H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Manuel H.

237 A.D.2d 109, 655 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2113

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 109 (In re Manuel H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Manuel H., 237 A.D.2d 109, 655 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Terrence McElrath, J.), entered on or about July 1, 1996, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and [110]*110unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence. According due deference to the credibility determinations of the trier of fact (People v Ray, 216 AD2d 102, lv denied 86 NY2d 800), we find that the court reasonably concluded that the testimony of the complainant at the hearing was credible, as opposed to the testimony of respondent (see, People v Rivera, 68 NY2d 786). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Terrence McElrath, J.), entered on or about July 1, 1996, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and [110]*110unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence. According due deference to the credibility determinations of the trier of fact (People v Ray, 216 AD2d 102, lv denied 86 NY2d 800), we find that the court reasonably concluded that the testimony of the complainant at the hearing was credible, as opposed to the testimony of respondent (see, People v Rivera, 68 NY2d 786). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 109, 655 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-manuel-h-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack